Rumsfeld wrote:If the guy rallying the troops is a warrior who puts himself on the line for the team, you're going to respect him more than some pacifistic little pussy who looks scared half the time he's on the ice. You're going to do things you might normally not do for that kind of guy.

Sometimes you have guys like that in the room but they don't speak up like they might because they don't have the authority of the C or A. It's not their team.

Don't underestimate the power of motivation and confidence and what the right personality can do to instill that in a group.

And this is my problem giving guys like Burrows an "A", and it'd be a similar problem giving Kesler the "C". I can't imagine how the LA Kings enjoy Dustin Brown's diving, and Kesler as our "C" would be the same shit. Remember this

I want guys that will battle and play with integrity. The Sedins won't battle, and Kesler and Burrows don't have much integrity. There is a rather large lack of leadership on this team.

Island Nucklehead wrote:I want guys that will battle and play with integrity. The Sedins won't battle, and Kesler and Burrows don't have much integrity. There is a rather large lack of leadership on this team.

Both Burrows and Kesler now play with integrity.

The only problem I have with putting the "C" on Kesler's jersey is that his past might haunt us. He built a reputation in his first few years and a pest and a diver. Since 2010 he has been a bit of the former and very little of the latter. The guy is one of the best two-way centers in the game, and he competes.

Rumsfeld wrote:If the guy rallying the troops is a warrior who puts himself on the line for the team, you're going to respect him more than some pacifistic little pussy who looks scared half the time he's on the ice. You're going to do things you might normally not do for that kind of guy.

Sometimes you have guys like that in the room but they don't speak up like they might because they don't have the authority of the C or A. It's not their team.

Don't underestimate the power of motivation and confidence and what the right personality can do to instill that in a group.

And this is my problem giving guys like Burrows an "A", and it'd be a similar problem giving Kesler the "C". I can't imagine how the LA Kings enjoy Dustin Brown's diving, and Kesler as our "C" would be the same shit. Remember this

I want guys that will battle and play with integrity. The Sedins won't battle, and Kesler and Burrows don't have much integrity. There is a rather large lack of leadership on this team.

Post of the year.... when did hockey become soccer. The three of them (Burrows, Kesler, Lappiere) put a bullseye on this team.

Reefer2 wrote:Been saying this for years, too many perimeter players who can all skate and no players who crashes the net.

3 main points from 3 years ago that I have been saying and arguing with the likes of people like Pot

1) - Canucks would never win the cup with AV as coach. AV is nothing but a defensive coach who will always revert to a trap when he should attack(see game 2 of this series), he was forced to play an attacking style of hockey by MG and he had the guns to do it. AV does not bring up young guys and give them a chance. AV cannot adjust his game within the game. Again AV has been made to look really great when he was given a team with the offensive talent this team had over the past 3 - 5 years.

Yeah, but you stole this from me 4 years ago.

Reefer2 wrote:2) Canucks have too many of the same type of players (Sedins, Raymond, & Hansen) who are soft perimeter players who can skate but don't go to the net. How many games night after night for the past couple of years have we seen all 3 forwards behind the net with no one in front. Cycle, cycle, cycle shot, shot blocked or goalie save but look no one in the dirty area to score. Kesler is the only player I would say at least trys to go to the net or deflect shots.

The cycle, cycle, cycle, is as much coaching as it is players. I have a tough time believing that the players go out every shift and completely deviate from the gameplan and system drawn up by the coaches. Some of this is what the players are capable of and so the coaching staff draws that plan up for them, some of it is an inability to carry the puck.

The Sedins are capable of going to the net with the puck. For some reason they don't. When they do they often have no support because the rest of the team is waiting for the infinite cycle to continue. Burrows is the only guy on the team that can consistently read the Sedins. They are primarily perimeter players though.

Hansen does go to the net. He's a giver. Better examples of perimeter guys would be Raymond, Higgins, Ebbett, and Schroeder. Ironically, Higgins has had the most success when he has gone to the net. Both him and Raymond are badly inconsistent.

Reefer2 wrote:3) Edler & Bieksa are over rated, they are good but they are not true #1 more of #2b type of players. This is OK except when you count on them to be Weber type players. Do you remember when we all thought Edler was going to be the next Lindstrom, Edler is a guy who was in the right place at the right time. His numbers were what they were/are because he played on one of the most offensive talented teams, even now his numbers are there because he plays 25 mins a night and on the top PP unit. Give any D man that and plays with the Sedins and their number would be higher than expected. Not saying he didn't have the raw talent but I wonder about his success is more of the environment and not what he created. Where was Bieksa toughness against Boston, a lot of talk about this yet we see it so rarely that he lives on reputation of what he did the first few years of his career.

When he first showed up on the team I called Edler to be either a Lidstrom-Lite or another overrated Swedish contribution like Ohlund was in his last few years in Vancouver. I expected him to be more of the latter, in 2011 I was hoping I was wrong as it appeared he may have finally put it together. By May of 2012 I was ready for him to be traded. He's a prime candidate for being traded because he's young enough and has the tools that another GM might think that Edler will live up to his billing with a change of scenery.

Bieksa was mean all playoffs in 2011, and he played with a hard edge for the first 2 games in Vancouver and carried that to Boston right up until Peverly lumberjacked him behind the knee and bruised his PCL. After that he could barely skate. He has always been "Casual Kev", when he's on he is the anchor for the blueline, when he's off he's a liability.

Reefer2 wrote:What pisses me off is that for the past 15 years, give or take a couple of seasons, the Canucks have had a top end team and we always seemed to either have a GM who wouldn't put the final pieces in (i.e. beach ball Dan) or a coach with an ego the size of Manhatt and played his favorite players instead of doing what is best for the team.

This is the first off-season for the rest of Gillis' career as GM of this team. He is now under the microscope and it's make or break time. Changes need to be made. He needs to prove this summer that he's the guy that is willing to shake things up enough and add and subtract here. I'm reserving judgement on him until next spring. I don't care how great or piss poor the team is through the season, as long as they make the playoffs and are ready to compete, that is where judgement will be passed.

This inception of the team has failed. They came VERY close, but they didn't quite get there.

Fortunately for Gillis this inception of the team was inherited from Burke and Nonis.....right RoyalDude?